Chu's Energy Miscalculations and "Grave" techo-optimism.

By Dave Cohen

" Lighten up a little bit. It's only the end of the world." — Samuel T. Anders

 

Let's break down energy spending in the stimulus package.

• $43 billion will be spent on all energy projects.
• $2 billion will be spent on battery research.
• $400 million will be spent "to encourage electric vehicle technologies".
• $700 million will be spent on federal & state purchases of fuel efficient vehicles.
• All together, only 7.2% of the energy spending goes toward reducing liquid fuel consumption.

 

$2.4 billion will be spent on R&D for electric vehicles. Over 90% of the new energy spending goes toward an "efficient and reliable" electricity grid, adding renewable sources to the grid, Energy Star appliances, house weatherization, etc.

 

"The chance that a smart grid will significantly reduce our oil consumption in the next 20 years is very close to zero."

 

Painfully admitting … oil will remain the world's primary transportation fuel for some time. Clearly, we aren't moving to a hydrogen economy quickly, and renewables are not on a path to replace oil in the next 50 years.

 

 

Chu is convinced—and rightly so—that we in the United States can not drill our way out of our dependency on imported oil. His view—again, this is correct—is based on our meager reserves and production rate relative to our consumption, which made up 23% of global demand in Q2, 2008. (chart below from Chu's powerpoint)

 

The idea we will be riding:

DOE's spending priorities should come as no surprise to you now that you understand where Obama and Dr. Chu stand. They assume we have anywhere from 20 to 80 years to solve the liquid fuels problem as appropriate efficiency measures are put in place over time. So we can add an implicit assumption that explains recent energy spending.

 

I have not discussed biofuels because these lie at the heart of Chu's techo-optimism. I will discuss Chu's Helios Project next week.

Until then, you may want to bone up on 4th-Generation biofuels.

 

If you think Chu's plan is just so much pie in the sky after you've studied problem, you are not alone.

 

Please read full By Dave Cohen

"To think that lower economic growth is good for the environment is completely wrong,"

From: "Crisis could boost emissions long term":  

 

 "Because there are many investments that are good for the environment, like efficiency, renewables and nuclear, that are being postponed or canceled. One or two years of lower carbon emissions won't count for much at the end of the day." - IEA

 

The economic crisis may lower carbon emissions in the short term but will raise them over the long term by crimping investment in cleaner energy sources, the International Energy Agency's chief economist said on Thursday.

 

The impact of the financial crisis and the ensuing economic slump on energy investments had been "stronger than anyone expected" and significant enough to have an impact on climate change and the whole energy supply chain, warned Fatih Birol.

 

    "To think that lower economic growth is good for the environment is completely wrong," Birol told Reuters.

 

Source: DrumBeat

GRISTY - Healthcare yes, cap-and-trade no?

From the GRIST - George Stephanopoulos says Dems can't possibly pass both healthcare reform and cap-and-trade, and they've effectively chosen healthcare. Dems have supported a plan to push healthcare through via budget reconciliation, which requires only a 50 vote majority. They have not supported a plan to do the same with carbon policy, and "there are nowhere near 60 votes for it," so it's effectively dead this year.

As much as Stephanopoulos bugs me, I fear he's pretty much right about this. Given what we've seen so far, a carbon bill that could get to 60 votes in the Senate would have to be utterly emasculated. - VIA David Roberts

The Great lakes are the first stopping point for invasive species arriving in North America

"It was overwhelming," said Jeff Bode of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "Aquatic invasive species has just taken off as such a big issue."

 

Green Bay - University of Notre Dame professor David Lodge has some advice for inland lakefront property owners worried about unwanted organisms invading their seemingly isolated waters: Keep an eye on the Great Lakes.

 

"The Great lakes are a beachhead - just the first stopping point for species arriving in North America,"  "If you want to know what's coming next," he said, "look at what's already in the Great Lakes."

 

So the conference's three host organizations - the DNR, UW Extension and the Wisconsin Association of Lakes - brought in some of North America's top experts on aquatic invasive species to talk about the sources of the problem and how to protect their lakes from them.

 

There are other pathways for unwanted fish, viruses and mollusks to make their way into Wisconsin's inland waters - barges traveling up the Mississippi River, for example - but the Great Lakes are a hot spot for invasive species because of their direct connection to the outside world via the St. Lawrence Seaway.

 

The Great Lakes are now home to about 185 foreign species. The majority of invasions since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened the lakes to overseas traffic a half century ago can be blamed on freighters arriving from foreign ports.

 

He said trying to shield a single lake doesn't work well because invasions mount in adjoining waters and eventually spread like a blanket across whole regions.

 

Please read full via jsonline.com

Up to $5M for Brownfields Job Training under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

EPA is accepting applications from eligible governmental entities and nonprofit organizations to provide environmental job training projects and to facilitate job creation in the assessment, remediation, or preparation of brownfields sites for sustainable reuse.   EPA anticipates awarding 10-12 cooperative agreements, whose maximum value each shall not exceed $500,000.

 

Eligible applicants must identify and propose to serve a community that currently receives, or has received, financial assistance (federal, state, or tribal) for brownfields assessment, revolving loan fund, cleanup, site-specific work carried out by state or tribal response programs, and/or targeted brownfields assessments performed directly by EPA.

 

The Agency is soliciting applications for projects that can be started expeditiously by applicants who can demonstrate the ability to contribute to economic recovery through the creation and/or preservation of jobs.

 

For more information, visit:

http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/eparecovery/index.htm

 

 

 

 

What did happen to safety and security in 1980?

10,000's of felons are 'hitting the streets' this month because states can no longer afford to incarcerate them. 

• Do you have a job for them (does anyone)?  I didn't think so.
• What do you think they will be doing to make some money?

People do drastic and dreadful things when they lose everything and have no hope.

 

IT WILL GET WORSE...

FACT- More Americans become criminals to get healthcare avoid homelessness and suffering during hard economic times.

 

The current state of safety and security in our nation has a 'high probability' of this becoming fiscal epidemic.

 

As you look as the deeply distributing chart below, understand that:

 'the population of the American corrections system is more than 7.3 million, or 1 in every 31 U.S. adults'*

 

 

How much does this crime and punishment cost our nation?

 

Example: In 2000 we spent a little over $3 billion on ALL U.S. prison health care and in 2008 JUST California wanted to ADD $3.5 billion more to prison healthcare  On top of a CA 7.8 billion prison-expansion signed into law in May 2007.

 

Caring cost for imates has gone up expoeltialy with the hepatitis C and AID's explosions prisons
 

 

JUST California - $11 Billion a year on prisons

 

If I hope that my children will be healthy and cared for as adults, does this mean I need to hope they become criminals?

 

Honesty in numbers... funny but not Ha, Ha funny.

Sorry if this offends a few... but it's Friday and I am working with the flu this week.

 

So I get a little punchy and find things like this tragic comedy very funny.

 

I can not understand how many people are oblivious of difference in the gluttonousness of numbers being thrown in our media today.

 

The image below explains it better than I ever could.

Thanks for the continued laughs  xkcd.com

With 'hope for true change'

Someday, the green economy will simply be referred to as....the economy.

Energy independence - 'there is no better American investment'

Two new reports detail the billions of dollars that American consumers and businesses could save through energy efficiency.

The United States is currently faced with many challenges: finding ways to help Americans save money, decreasing the rate of unemployment, and battling global warming, all in the midst of an economic crisis.  Energy efficiency is one of the most effective, short-term and long-term resources that can address all of these issues. The implementation of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) is a proven mechanism proven to encourage productive investments in greater levels of energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest, and cleanest source of energy.  This report highlights the importance of energy efficiency and the various market barriers that have limited the use of energy efficiency, discusses current state actions, and explains how an EERS works to achieve large energy savings.  Most importantly, this report summarizes the potential savings that the United States might attain through the adoption of a national EERS as determined by a recent ACEEE analysis and explains the methodology supporting the analysis.

The current proposals for a federal EERS, House of Representatives Bill 889 (H.R. 889), sponsored by Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), and Senate Bill 548 (S. 548), sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), are both known as the Save American Energy Act.  These bills call for distribution utilities throughout the country to demonstrate 15% electricity savings and 10% natural gas savings by 2020. 

The energy saved through the proposed federal EERS could power almost 48 million households in 2020, accounting for about 36% of the households in the United States.  Moreover, this level of energy savings will save Americans almost $170 billion, create over 220,000 jobs and reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 262 million metric tons while eliminating the need to build 390 power plants.  These and other impacts are summarized in the table below.

Energy Savings	2020	Equivalent to:
Annual electricity savings	364 billion kWh
Estimated peak demand savings	117,000 MW	390 power plants
Annual direct gas savings	794 TBtu
Program Costs and Benefits (2007$, 4.5% real discount rate)
Cumulative Benefits	$ 247.1 billion
Cumulative Costs	$ 78.5 billion
Total Net Savings	$ 168.6 billion
Macroeconomic Impacts
CO2 Emissions Savings  (MMT)	262	48 million automobiles
Net Jobs Created	222,000	976 manufacturing plants

An EERS focuses on natural gas and electric utilities, encouraging continually increasing energy savings over time.  Currently, nineteen states are implementing a state-based EERS.  Policy actions at the federal level are necessary to strengthen the continued development and implementation of EERS at the state level and expand this policy to all 50 states.

Learn more about EERS and other potential energy legislation.

View full report as a PDF or click to order hard copy.

 Read full via aceee.org

Auto parts get $5 Billion while Electric Vehicles only get $2.4 Billion

Hard to read in the same day that we are bailing out the "AutoParts suppliers" for over $5 BILLION dollars and only investing $2.4 in the future of electric vehicles.

 

When we end up paying $100 Billion to the auto manufactures was that not based on the 'trickle down effect' that it would stimulate suppliers?

 

Furthermore the $2.4 Billion for electric vehicles is NOT a bailout. It is a 'shared cost investment' that is competitively awarded.

 

DOE "By contributing to the reduction of petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions, these projects will advance the United States' economic recovery, national energy security, and environmental sustainability."  Read full at DOE

Are we serious about this? Read it again and tell it sink in... seriously.

 

 

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. - Chief Seattle

Just words... from - Ancient Native American Proverbs 

 

Human kind has not woven the web of life:
We are but one thread within it! Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together. All things connect!

Treat the earth well:
It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.

and Seek not to be perfect, when you are truly on that path shall you see the beauty of imperfection as a manifestation of your own perfection.

 

 

Progress? Over 100 years and electric car tech is new?

Harris & Ewing Before Ford 1906.
Senator George P. Wetmore, Rhode Island, in Washington DC, riding a Krieger electric landaulet, produced in France

 

In 'reality' we can have economic, reliable and abundant electric cars anytime we feel like it.

 

EV history Since the 1800's...   (from http://www.eaaev.org)

 

In the late 1890s electric vehicles (EVs) outsold gasoline cars ten to one. EVs dominated the roads and dealer showrooms. Some automobile companies, like Oldsmobile and Studebaker actually started out as successful EV companies, only later did they transition to gasoline-powered vehicles. In fact, the first car dealerships were exclusively for EVs.

 

Early production of EVs, like all cars, was accomplished by hand assembly. In 1910, volume production of gasoline powered cars was achieved with the motorized assembly line. This breakthrough manufacturing process killed off all but the most well-financed car builders. Independents, unable to buy components in volume died off. The infrastructure for electricity was almost non-existent outside of city boundaries – limiting EVs to city-only travel. Another contributing factor to the decline of EVs was the addition of an electric motor (called the starter) to gasoline powered cars – finally removing the need for the difficult and dangerous crank to start the engine. Due to these factors, by the end of World War I, production of electric cars stopped and EVs became niche vehicles – serving as taxis, trucks, delivery vans, and freight handlers.

 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a rebirth of EVs prompted by concerns about air pollution and the OPEC oil embargo. In the early 1990s, a few major automakers resumed production of EVs – prompted by California ’s landmark Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. Those EVs were produced in very low volumes – essentially hand-built like their early predecessors. However, as the ZEV mandate was weakened over the years, the automakers stopped making EVs – Toyota was the last major auto maker to stop EV production in 2003. Thanks to the efforts by DontCrush.com some of these production EVs were saved from the crusher.

 

Sources:

EAA historical archives, “The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History”, David A. Kirsch. “The Lost Cord: The Story Tellers History of the Electric Car”, Barbara E. Taylor. “Taken For a Ride”, Jack Doyle. Learn more about the history of EV here

Why clean coal is years away (over a decade)

Coal is here to stay, but efforts to cut emissions are ambitious, expensive, and have largely stumbled

Coal's problems, however, are getting to be so big and serious that they are not just overshadowing the industry but threatening to render it obsolete. About 80 percent of the electricity sector's carbon dioxide emissions come from burning coal. A price on CO2 pollution, which Congress might impose as early as this year, is expected to be so costly that the mere prospect of it is already shaking things up. Some states have banned new coal plants, and many companies are canceling their plans in other places.

The industry's greatest hope for survival, as far as CO2 emissions go, is a work-in-progress technological arsenal known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS.

With all the makings—and risk—of a classic American gamble, it is in some ways the energy equivalent of missile defense.

It's ambitious, expensive, intricate, and wildly controversial.

Cue the requisite political theatrics in Washington and, behind them, more serious questions about the promise of "clean coal" versus the reality.

Environmentalists have aggressively volleyed back. Clean coal, they say, doesn't exist.

So, what's needed to break this cycle?

Money, for one thing. Credit Suisse Group says $15 billion needs to be invested in CCS over the next 10 years for it to play an important role in climate change. The International Energy Agency says $20 billion. Pew's global warming center puts the number as high as $30 billion. Those numbers dwarf the actual investments thus far. The Bush administration spent about $2.5 billion on advanced coal technology—an unprecedented amount, to be sure, but far below the estimates of what will be needed. CCS proponents say both the government and the private sector need to step up their investments.

Read more via U.S. News and World Report...

True that - You Can't Manage What You Don't Measure

Perfect statement in management applied to water conservation efforts...

 

greenbiz.com Despite the increasing necessity of managing water use -- and a host of incentive programs to make it cost-effective to do so -- companies, municipalities and the federal government alike are behind the curve on tracking their water footprint.

 

Read full via GLRPPR

 

 

Is it 2009 with 26 states not covered by OSHA?

Cal-OSHA Quote of the day: "In 26 states, public employees are not covered by OSHA workplace safety standards. Without those protections and responsibilities, public employees face an undue risk of being killed, injured, or sickened on the job."

 

John Bresland, chairman of the board of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board

 

Go to the full story in Risk and Insurance

Steven Chu advocated adjusting trade duties as a "weapon" to protect U.S. manufacturing,

WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday advocated adjusting trade duties as a "weapon" to protect U.S. manufacturing, just a day after one of China's top climate envoys warned of a trade war if developed countries impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.

 

By IAN TALLEY and TOM BARKLEY (WSJ) 

Energy Chief Says U.S. Is Open to Carbon Tariff

Mr. Chu, speaking before a House science panel, said establishing a carbon tariff would help "level the playing field" if other countries haven't imposed greenhouse-gas-reduction mandates similar to the one President Barack Obama plans to implement over the next couple of years.

 

"If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage...[and] we would look at considering perhaps duties that would offset that cost," Mr. Chu said.

 

Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator from the National Development and Reform Commission, told Dow Jones Newswires Monday that a carbon tariff would be a "disaster," would prompt a trade war and wouldn't be legal under World Trade Organization agreements

 

"It does not abide by the rule of [the] WTO and, secondly, it's not fair," Mr. Gao said, adding that his delegation would relate China's concerns to U.S. officials.

 

The carbon tax issue is important to energy-intensive U.S. industries -- including paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers -- that worry that costs imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a disadvantage to rivals in nations that aren't bound by similar requirements.

 

European Union officials are considering a similar tariff, prompting some developing nations to caution that trade restrictions run the risk of retaliatory action.

 

China is seeking to require importers of its carbon-intensive goods to bear the emission costs, concerned that targets such as those proposed by the U.S. would cripple the nation's growth as an industrializing nation.

 

Read full via Wall Street Journal

 

Water Rapidly Becoming Key Strategic Risk to Commerce; Impending Energy Collision

Green Car Congress

Water consumption or withdrawals per unit of energy produced, by energy type, in the United States. Source: DHI Group. Click to enlarge.

A Pacific Institute report commissioned by Ceres, whose Investor Network on Climate Risk advises investors with more than US$7 trillion in assets, concludes that impacts of declining water quality and availability will be “far-reaching” for business and industry in the developed as well as the developing world, and that companies which address water stress as a key strategic risk will be better positioned to adjust to negative effects such as reduced water allotments, rising water costs, community opposition, and increased public scrutiny of corporate water practices.

Among the increasing challenges is that while the sourcing, processing, and delivery of clean water is becoming more energy-intensive, the extraction and refining of fossil fuels and their substitutes is trending towards increasing water requirements per unit of fuel produced as energy companies work with progressively lower grade resources.

Processes such as oil extraction from sources such as tar sands and deep-water offshore oil wells, as well as the expansion of first-generation biofuels such as corn-based ethanol are setting the stage for a “water/energy collision” of resource management policies. “With increasing frequency,” write the Pacific Institute researchers, “we value energy production over water production.”

Citing a study by Danish water consultancy DHI Group as well as one from the University of Texas (earlier link), the researchers point out that the water footprint of renewable energy sources varies widely, and is particularly intense for first-generation biofuels made from sugar, starch, vegetable oils, animal fats, or other food-source feedstocks, rather than non-food sources such as cellulose.

Read full via Green Car Congress

Resources - Water Scarcity and Climate Change: Growing Risks for Businesses and Investors

Underground Coal Gasification Demo; Update on Linc Chinchilla UCG In Australia

The Government of Alberta, Canada, through the Alberta Energy Research Institute (AERI), is providing C$8.83 million (US$7.0 million) toward a $30-million underground coal gasification (UCG) project with Swan Hills Synfuels of Calgary. Swan Hills Synfuels expects the project to demonstrate the ability to manufacture synthetic gas from Alberta’s coal resources, with the future potential of utilizing the coal seams for carbon capture and storage.

The project in north-central Alberta aims to develop a commercial operation that produces clean, synthesis gas for power generation. The deep formations could also store carbon dioxide after the coal is turned into gas. Underground coal gasification has been used commercially outside of North America for close to 40 years with minimal surface impact when compared to traditional coal mining and production.

Continue Reading “Alberta to Host Underground Coal Gasification Demo; Update on Linc Chinchilla UCG In Australia”

Delayed - 'a Google project that could save the world'.

Google - "It's time for Plan G"

Last year Google made me very excited about being involved in various energy projects that genuinely looked like 'good stuff'.

Realistic, viable and financially feasible plans began sprouting out of Google like their search engine results.

Then they used a genius idea to make their good ideas awesome by adding yours in a global collaboration. Thus began the 10^ 100^ project.

Taking some of the worlds greatest minds and venture capitalists and having them "dry run" the worlds ideas on how to save the planet sounded like 'a dream come true'.

That's where I got on board, after a decade of planning my national energy and environmental programs I know I have one of the only concepts that has the focus on saving people and the planet without sacrificing our level of quality living or stifle advancements in technology.

So Google, where's the feedback?

• My program met every criteria outlined
• I want none of the money personally,
• and it unequivocally solves our foreign oil interests, coal, nuclear, renewable, housing, energy grid, health, air and water problems...

You only gave me a 30 second clip and 1 page of info to 'sell this', as your project would not accept the full 600 page technical document.

Seriously, no one has a better plan, is the 10^ 100^ project real or a tragic hoax. The announcement dates keep moving and there was no confirmation of my submission.

I personally felt this program would be best in the hands of brilliance and not bureaucracy but, our nation desperately needs this now, please respond if you are serious or I will hand over the plan to the new Administration.

Thanks,

 

Christopher Haase

Environmental, Health and Safety Director

 

---

Stay up to date on googles response via:

Official Google Blog: An update from the Project 10^100 team

'hormones' in most bottled water

“We live in a soup of ‘estrogens,’ if you will, which we can acquire from almost anywhere.” This complicates our food choices, she says, because people seldom know what upstream contaminants have contacted our foods and beverages before we’re given the choice: Plastic or something else? 

 

Researchers in Frankfurt, Germany, have just reported evidence suggesting that the mineral water dispensed in some glass bottles may also contain such hormonelike pollution — and not because it leached out of the glass.

 

This would mean the water was polluted prior to bottling. Several scientists now suspect one source might be the plumbing used to move water from natural reservoirs to — and/or through — processing equipment in a bottling plant.

 

Polyvinyl chloride tubing, for instance, is widely used by industry. So if mineral water were pumped through PVC piping it could pick up bisphenol-A, organotin and phthalates — “because [PVC] is a source of all those,” notes Shanna Swan, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. And, she adds, all of these materials that have been found in PVC have an estrogenic alter ego.

 

Polycarbonate plastic is also used for industrial tubes and piping, notes endocrinologist Ana Soto of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. The basic building blocks of that plastic are molecules of bisphenol A, a compound that her team has established to be a potent estrogen mimic.

 

Phthalates, a widely used class of volatile industrial solvents and plasticizers, also can taint water or any other material — outdoors or in a bottling plant, Soto notes. Another potential source of waterborne “hormones”: excreted drugs. Many of the ones that are known to taint water supplies can turn on estrogen receptors in the body.

 

Read full from source:  sciencenews.org

Hartland Wisconsin tops recycling challenge

The village of Hartland won Waukesha County's 2008 Recycle More Challenge by posting a 29% increase in recycling tonnage, the greatest percentage increase of the 25 municipalities that participated in the county recycling program. In 2008, village residents recycled 815 tons, 184 tons more than in 2007.

 

In addition to the extra revenue generated by the increased recycling, the total tons of paper, plastic, steel, glass and aluminum recycled by Hartland reduced greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 541 cars from the road for a year, a county news release says.

 

The recycled tons also saved enough energy to serve 169 homes for a year, the release says.

 

Read full by Darryl Enriquez of the Journal Sentinel

 

Everyone 'but FED' Hates Ethanol

From Wall Street Journal

These days, it's routine for businesses to fail, get rescued by the government, and then continue to fail. But ethanol, which survives only because of its iron lung of subsidies and mandates, is a special case. Naturally, the industry is demanding even more government life support.

 

Corn ethanol producers -- led by Wesley Clark, the retired general turned chairman of a new biofuels lobbying outfit called Growth Energy -- want the Obama Administration to make their guaranteed market even larger. Recall that the 2007 energy bill requires refiners to mix 36 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2022. The quotas, which ratchet up each year, are arbitrary, but evidently no one in Congress wondered what might happen if the economy didn't cooperate.

 

Now the recession is hammering demand for gas. The Energy Information Administration notes that U.S. consumption fell nearly 7% in 2008 and expects another 2.2% drop this year. That comes as great news for President Obama, who is achieving his carbon-reduction goals even without a new carbon tax, but the irony is that the ethanol industry is part of the wider collateral damage.

 

Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.

 

The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%. It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.

 

Ouch... read more From Wall Street Journal

 

Quote - "Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors."

$17 billion will make "FutureGen the AIG of clean coal"

To get $17 billion to carbon capture and storage by 2025 does not sound like much anymore. Sadly.

 

But that isn't the point of this fluff article, the point is the Coalition for Clean Coal admits in the article that we will not have or use  carbon capture and storage will not be ready for 'primetime until 2025 at the soonest with "hope" 10's of billions will make it viable by then.

 

With the administrations involvement "FutureGen will be the AIG of clean coal" 

 

 

From Article - "Obama administration may revive carbon-capture project"

 

The stakes are high, and so are the costs.

 

If the United States and international partners can find a cost-effective way to remove carbon from coal, the coal industry would be guaranteed a future even if the world takes steps later to prevent severe global warming. Finding the right technology, however, and proving that it can be widely used won't happen quickly or cheaply.

 

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal companies and utilities that back the continued use of coal, supports FutureGen. The coalition estimates that it would cost $17 billion to get carbon capture and storage ready for use by 2025.

 

The Obama administration wants to plunge ahead.

 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the Senate Energy Committee this month that giving up coal would mean higher electricity rates and higher natural-gas prices as companies shifted to natural gas, which burns with far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal does. The higher prices would prompt some industries to move production overseas, he said.

 

"China, India and the United States will not turn their back on coal," Chu said. "So we have got to get it right."

 

A report released Wednesday concludes that the U.S. could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 85 percent by 2050, in line with Obama's goal, without nuclear power or coal. The study looks only at currently available technology, and doesn't consider carbon capture and storage. It says that currently available energy efficiency and renewable energy technology would do the job at about half the cost and would create more jobs than an alternative that looks more like the current mix of renewable energy, nuclear power and coal.

 

Read full at kansascity.com

HUGE - DOE to Invest $8 Billion in Weatherization

Weatherizing a home can involve a wide range of activities, including adding insulation to the attic. Enlarge this photo. Credit: Karen Doherty, Ohio Department of Development

DOE announced last week that it will invest nearly $8 billion in state and local weatherization and energy efficiency efforts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The funds will be divided between the Weatherization Assistance Program, which will receive nearly $5 billion, and the State Energy Program, which will receive nearly $3 billion. This will help families save hundreds of dollars every year on their energy bills, while creating approximately 87,000 jobs. To jump-start the job creation and weatherization work, DOE is initially releasing $780 million and will release more as the states demonstrate that they are using the funding effectively.

The State Energy Program funding will be used to provide rebates to consumers for home energy audits or other energy-saving improvements; to develop renewable energy and alternative fuel projects; to promote Energy Star products; to upgrade the energy efficiency of state and local government buildings; and other innovative state efforts to help families save money on their energy bills. The weatherization funding will improve the energy efficiency of the homes of low-income families by adding more insulation, sealing leaks, or modernizing heating and air conditioning equipment, at a cost of up to $6,500 per home. The energy efficiency upgrades will be available for families making up to 200% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, this translates to about $44,000 per year in the lower 48 states, $55,140 per year in Alaska, and $50,720 per year in Hawaii. See the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program Web site.

U.S. Can Curb CO2 without Nuclear or Coal

A report commissioned from the German Aerospace Center shows how the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science-based cuts in global warming pollution – without nuclear power or coal.

 

The report finds that off-the-shelf clean energy technology can cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by at least 23 percent from current levels by 2020 and 85 percent by 2050 (equal to a 12 percent cut by 2020 and an 83 percent cut by 2050 from 1990 levels) at half the cost and double the job-creation of what it would take to meet energy needs with "dirty" energy sources.

 

The study makes conservative assumptions to ensure the real-world viability of the scenario. The report assumes that only currently available technologies will be used, and no appliances or power plants will be retired prematurely, and adopts the same projections for population and economic growth included in the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook.

 

"What this report shows is that doing what science says is necessary won't just provide the planet a living future, it actually will create far more jobs and save far more money than business as usual," . "And it will do it without exposing us to the unnecessary risks and pointless boondoggles that would come with any further investments in nuclear or coal."

 

Read full at eponline.com or download the full report

 

 

'Issues' Glossed over in the cap-and-trade debate...

From New York Times

"I'm not sure that's the example one wants to give," ...  the 1990 law signed by President George H.W. Bush required U.S. EPA to auction about 3 percent of the cap-and-trade credits. Electric utilities got the rest for free based on their historical emission levels.

 

The president replied with a warning against giving away too many free allowances to industry for compliance with a cap-and-trade system.

 

"Now, the experience of a cap-and-trade system thus far is that if you're giving away carbon permits for free, then basically you're not really pricing the thing and it doesn't work, or people can game the system in so many ways that it's not creating the incentive structures that we're looking for," Obama said.

 

Nathaniel Keohane at the Environmental Defense Fund, said Obama was nonetheless hitting on an important point when it comes to the free credits in Europe, where companies nonetheless passed along costs for the allowances to consumers and reaped a windfall profit.

 

Read more

 

 

Haase - Sooo many issues on this, commenting would be futile and redundant.

 

Example:  'Extraordinarily complex issue'

...but lets jump right in throwing billions of tax dollars on an unproven market during the worst historical market place with "hope" it will work . Knowing it CAN NOT significantly lower foreign oil dependence or emissions but, will raise rates, use of coal and nuclear energy over the next decade.

 

Seriously, we are increasing, corn ethanol use, crop based biofuels and following Europe's market leads that make the U.S. markets look stable... is anyone paying attention?

 

NOTE: I am not totally against the concept or idea, timing and necessity are everything for positive influence and actual change' 

 

Not Yours! - 44mpg overall minivan made by GM.

U.S. GM FAIL - What gets better MPG and half the price, seats 7 at 44mpg overall?

YEP, G.M. could sell these and cut U.S. oil demand 60% (for cars & light trucks) and highway emissions 40%, but why would they give Americans what we want.

 

According to my server records, individuals in senate and congress visit this blog, and maybe should get a 'little frustrated' we are giving a company billions of dollars that is not returning on investment. The volt is a: impractical, unaffordable and a decade away from being 'ready for primetime'. 

 

This is ready now and not having it in U.S. is a FAIL.

 

GM Europe has added a low emissions ecoFlex model to its compact Zafira MPV lineup that will allow buyers in many countries, including the UK, to pay lower registration fees. The new Zafira ecoFlex is powered by a new 1.7-liter turbodiesel engine that was recently introduced in the Astra ecoFlex. The new engine produces 110 hp and 192 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to move the Mazda5-sized Zafira to 60 mph in 12.6 seconds while getting 44.4 mpg (U.S.) combined on the EU test cycle. The seven-passenger Zafira gets taller gear ratios and lower rolling resistance tires to further help mileage. The press release is after the jump.

 

Continue reading Opel/Vauxhall adds ecoFlex Zafira MPV with 44.4 mpg (U.S.), 139 g/km CO₂

 

P.S. I want one ;-(

I just fixed your 401K - Oil infusion....

BUY LOW... oil will soon jump 4 fold*.

If anyone is still investing, THIS IS the time to buy into OIL corps*.

I have shown the U.S. how we can transition of fossil fuels over the next two decades, but I gather it will take them another decade before they 'grasp' the understanding of the problem enough to know my plan is the most economical and sustainable being proposed.

Until this is understood... we will be a slave to fossil fuel.

So "Buy Low & Sell High" this year!*

From The OliDrum- edition of Oilwatch Monthly can be downloaded at this weblink (PDF, 1.9 MB, 28 pp).

*NOTE: The world markets are currently focused on AIG, Ponzi and the next get the banks rich scheme... I am just a EHS guy trying to protect people and the planet, and would NEVER tell you how to spend money (only how to save). I have enough 'clean' investments in my portfolio and would have a moral dilemma to invest in oil BUT, we will run out of 'cheap' oil in my lifetime and it is at a inarguable historic low with only a volatile future on the horizon... so if you lost a little this may offer more.

To get over the 'moral dilemma maybe you can 'sell yourself' that it is a patriotic duty to support cheap oil as the U.S. armies are the third largest consumer of oil in the world.

Or is it my patriotic duty to help our nation kick the habit?

Alternative Energy 'Revolution'

Quote - "Al Gore, you've doomed us all"...

Much love to xkcd

Van Jones -"last unvetted speech"

the “green MBA” would become obsolete because there won’t be any MBA programs that teach people to do things that are mean and stupid...

Van spoke to a crowd of friends of the Presidio School of Management at a private event attended by about 200 people. He had to leave the venue early to go home and pack—he’s got a red eye Sunday night and he reports for duty Monday morning at the White House in his new role as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. This is a crowd that that regards him as a hero— he received a standing ovation before he even opened his mouth.

On the one hand, his message is something those of us that are in the sustainability movement have heard a million times before: there is an enormous challenge ahead, we need systemic change, and we have the tools to make it happen. It’s a speech I could give in my sleep if I were that charismatic, but alas, charm like that seems to come along once or twice in a generation.

When Van Jones speaks, people listen, gladly. He told us his best hope was that the “green MBA” would become obsolete because there won’t be any MBA programs that teach people to do things that are mean and stupid—and of course we lapped it up.

Jones has the ability to craft a sound bite that puts it all together for you—even if you’ve heard it all before. He challenged the audience to remember that we needed to pursue systematic societal changes because if we didn’t we’d end up with biofuel bombers and solar tanks. The planet would be all dead, but at least it would be temperate! We need systematic changes.

When asked to describe his first hundred days on the job in the white house, he reminded us that for the first time since 1993 he’d have a boss. “You don’t get to go into the white house and tell them you’ve got a plan.

My first 2 weeks are orientation to learn about the plans that are already in motion and then we start talking about a work plan, because, as they tell me, any ideas I might have right now are either redundant or illegal.” - What?

Read full from triplepundit

ALMOST HALF THE WORLD FACES WATER SHORTAGE BY 2030

By Globe & Mail, Canada - The world faces a bleak future over its dwindling water supplies, with pollution, climate change and rapidly growing populations raising the possibility of widespread shortages, a new report compiled by 24 agencies of the United Nations says.

 

The warning from the UN is based on one of the most comprehensive assessments the global body has undertaken on the state of the world's fresh water . . .

 

"Today, water management crises are developing in most of the world," the report says, citing a single week in November of 2006 when there were local news reports of shortages in 14 countries, including parts of Canada, the United States and Australia. water map Enlarge Image Internet Links

 

The assessment, called World Water Development Report, says that while water supplies are under threat, the demand for water is increasing rapidly because of industrialization, rising living standards and changing diets that include more foods, such as meat, that require larger amounts of water to produce.

 

"The result is a continuously increasing demand for finite water resources for which there are no substitutes," it says, predicting that by 2030, nearly half of the world's population will be living in areas of high water stress. . .

 

Population and urban growth are among the reasons the UN agencies worry about water shortages. Every year, the world's population grows by another 80 million, with most of the growth occurring in urban areas. The report says this means the world will have "substantially more people" living in urban and coastal areas vulnerable to scare water resources.

 

Another concern is the huge demand agriculture places on water resources. Already, about 70 per cent of the fresh water used by people is for growing crops and raising livestock. The report expresses concern that as more people in emerging economies gain middle-class lifestyles, they will consume more milk, eggs, chicken and beef, "which is much more water-intensive than the simpler diets they are replacing."

The U.S. has it easy, other will just starve

"Farmers can't afford a thousand dollars a ton, so they've cut back on ammonia. Wheat protein percentages will drop from 14% to 8%. People are going to starve."

 

Let's take a look at what this means to the global food supply. Here are the 2005 production numbers in millions of tons. There are six and a half billion of us and 626 million tons produced; this staple crop provides a little less than two hundred pounds of grain per capita.

 

From the dailykos

Global Human Protein Deficit

There were already significant concerns regarding wheat supplies and a dangerous pathogen called Ug99 wheat rust is spreading.

Assuming we dodge the wheat rust and climate issues the 43% reduction in protein content we won't have much trouble here in North America but it is going to be awful for places like Haiti.

 Haiti already had troubles related to food .. and the things people do when there isn't enough to go around. If the wheat they buy suddenly has dramatically less protein the effects will be awful.

Haiti is the obvious problem in this hemisphere and I'm going to pick Pakistan as the trouble spot in the east. They're already under the gun financially and if they escape an outright default they're still going to have reduction in imports ... and again we come back to the 43% decrease in protein.

There are some things we can technically do to avoid outcomes ..., but I don't think we have the political will to do them.

 

An actual threat - Global Dimming...

Pollution Causing Global Dimming

According to a report in Friday's edition of the journal Science, skies all over the world are dimming due to increases in airborne pollution over the past 30 years.

The new study compiles satellite and land-based data on global dimming over a longer period than had previously been available. . .

The researchers reported that the dimming is happening all across the world, except in Europe.

Read full from redorbit

 

Source the Drum

Solar -"Which one is it?"

Solar energy industry's situation bittersweet

While BP Solar has no plans for layoffs in Maryland, it will put its new 140,000-square-foot, $30 million building up for lease or sale this fall, said spokesman Tom Mueller. While demand for solar panels is still intact, foreign startups are bringing stiff competition to the industry.

"In the last 10 years, technology has advanced significantly in the solar front," Mueller said. "The cost of producing equipment starts to go down as new technology is being introduced … That's the ongoing challenge — keeping up with technology and competing with the cost structure of startups. How do we compete with these new competitors?"

OR

Solar's prospects dim, at least for near term

Applications for new solar projects have plunged in recent months in California as homeowners and business owners struggle to get credit and rein in spending on big-ticket items such as a rooftop full of solar panels. . .

The drop in applications for solar homes parallels the near-freeze in the overall housing market. New-home construction fell to a record low in 2008 in California, according to the California Building Industry Association, and January data hints that 2009 could be even worse.

Read more From the Drum: